![\"\"](\"https:\/\/sites.miamioh.edu\/havighurst\/files\/2021\/03\/tileburnedin-1024x576.jpg\")
On the March 25 Wellness Day, a couple friends and I decided\nto watch War and Peace<\/em>. The definitive War and Peace <\/em>adaptation.\nThe 431-minute long, four-part, 1967 Sergei Bondarchuk War and Peace <\/em>film.\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Sergei\nBondarchuk, a relatively new figure in the Soviet film industry at the time,\nwas given no orders other than \u201cto make it better than the American-Italian\nfilm\u201d (a reference to King Vidor\u2019s 1956 version starring Audrey Hepburn and\nHenry Fonda).[1]<\/a>\nThere were no limits. The chairman of the State Planning committee of the RSFSR\nhelped supply uniforms\u2014and by helping to supply uniforms I mean forcing several\ndozen factories to produce 10s of thousands of period-accurate uniforms. In\naddition, the Red Army was used as extras. The filming of the biggest battle of\nthe movie, The Battle of Borodino, which is the first time the Napoleonic army\ndid not decisively win a battle, took 3 months to film and involved 15,000\nsoldiers (the actual battle in 1812 took one day and involved approximately\n300,000 combatants). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Frenchmen were flown in to play\nFrenchmen, art was flown in from museums (58 of them!), a wooden city was\nerected just to be burned down.[2]<\/a> Estimates\nfor the total cost range from 7.8 million to 27 million rubles, equivalent to 202\nmillion \u2013 700 million USD today, when adjusted for inflation. Low estimates\nwould make this film one of the most expensive film of the 20th<\/sup>\ncentury, while high estimates would make it almost twice as expensive as thenext most expensive film ever made to this day.[3]<\/a> The\ncosts are impossible to know for sure, because soldiers and factories weren\u2019t\npaid by the filmmakers, but by the Soviet Government. But if international cost\nis to say anything, the tickets to watch the film in the US were $7.50 in 1972,\nthe equivalent of $56.52 today, just to be able to watch one of the four parts.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n But enough of the history. How good\nwas the movie? And how does it compare to Tolstoy\u2019s novel? Fortunately, I\u2019ve read\nthe book, so I can let you know. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Part 1 : Andrei Bolkonsky<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The film starts with a quote from\nTolstoy, and then we fly through expansive, slow moving landscapes, matched\nwith auspicious orchestral and operatic singing during the opening credits. After\nthe credits, we are immediately dropped into the microscopic detail of an\naristocratic party\u2014from the beginning, we are shown the contrasts [or is it the\nsimilarities?] between the grand and the small. To Tolstoy, all of life is connected\nseamlessly, and Bondarchuk wants us to feel it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The pinnacle of this part is the\nending of Part I (Part 1 is split into 2 sections), in which a slow zoom out reveals\nthe scale of the chaos of the battle of Austerlitz, with hundreds of horses stampeding\nin circles as clouds of gun-created smoke make seeing friend from foe almost\nimpossible. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Part 2: Natasha Rostova<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This part is the\nonly part of the movie that doesn\u2019t feature a major battle. Instead, it\nfeatures massive balls and aristocratic politicking, focused largely around\nNatasha Rostova and what \u201ctrue Russianness\u201d means. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Seeing the\nballs come off the page and onto the big screen was impressive. To see rather\nthan read about how good of a dancer Natasha (the actress, Lyudmila Saveleva\nwas a ballerina) was and how lavish the ballroom looked was a showcase in not\nonly great set design, but also great camerawork\u2014the medium of film, rather\nthan writing, is fully embraced. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The\neffeminate Alexander I, seen rather than described, is supposed to appear weak\nbehind a fa\u00e7ade of splendor. The split-screen between a Moscow party at the\nRostov\u2019s house, full of color, gaiety, and Russian, contrasts with St.\nPetersburg\u2019s social scene, one that\u2019s pale, quiet, and French. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For me, the\nhighlight of this part was the ominous ending, starting with a comet and an announcement\nthat it is now 1812, followed by 2 minutes of a seemingly endless march of thousands\nof French soldiers, on their way toward Russia. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Part 3: The Year 1812<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This part is\nall about the Battle of Borodino, and it reveals how serious the war has become\nfor Russia, as younger and younger soldiers fill the battlefield, and massive\nnumbers of soldiers are maimed. In a way authentic to Tolstoy, General Kutuzov\nis contrasted with Napoleon, a man of faith and patience versus the supposed\n\u201cGreat Man,\u201d who thinks he controls the outcome from the backline. To\ndemonstrate this difference, we see Napoleon offered lunch, and he refuses, too\nfocused on trying to control a battle way beyond the scope of one man. In\ncontrast, Kutuzov is found eating a whole chicken without utensils while\noverlooking the war, as he knows this battle will be won not by strategy nor\ntactics, but rather by the Russian will to defend their homeland. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Part 4: Pierre Bezukhov<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This part is\nprobably the most complete movie within the series\u2014it could stand on its own\nand still be great. Napoleon enters Moscow, and we see Pierre, one of the main\nprotagonists, in French occupied territory. This is possibly the most cinematic\npart of the series, with numerous experimental film techniques interspersed\u2014most\nnotably, a massive photomontage features prominently, an art style that was\nconsidered too avant-garde and bourgeois for much of Soviet history. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This part\nalso contains the most overt, revisionist changes. After victory, Kutuzov gives\na speech talking about the humanity of the French, only to be followed by an\nidea that they should be harshly punished for their actions. Following this, he\nrides, to the cheers of soldiers, through a set of lowered French flags,\nparalleling the 1945 Moscow Victory Parade, in which Nazi flags were lowered as\nSoviet soldiers marched through (Leonid Brezhnev had revived the Victory Day\nparade in 1965 so the scene had contemporary resonance). The final scene of the\nmovie, in sharp contrast to the final scene of the book, is built up with great\nprecision in order to end in a true crescendo, as we see flashbacks to some of\nthe most important scenes, eventually returning to where we began, a flyover of\nmassive landscapes, still untouched by French hands, with a quote by Tolstoy\nabout the simplicity<\/em> of happiness, virtue, and the connectedness of man.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Overall <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n There is nothing to complain about the\nacting, filmography, writing, scenery, or costumes. There were no cut corners. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The only\ncomplaint I have is that Pierre wasn\u2019t as large, youthful, or intimidating as\nhe was portrayed in the book and how his exploits would make him seem. This was\nunavoidable, as the director, Sergei Bondarchuk, insisted on playing the part:\nin Tolstoy\u2019s novel, Pierre first appears as a young man, just finished with his\nstudies, while Bondarchuk was in his mid-40s at the time of filming. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nrevisionist aspects of the film are kept to a near minimum, which is to be\nhighly lauded, especially since Bondarchuk, who made the film during the final\nyears of the Khrushchev era and first released it during the beginning of the\nBrezhnev era, needed to please the government. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Part 2 and\nthe romantic scenes were not extremely interesting to me, but they are no less\nwell done than other Masterpiece dramas such as The Crown <\/em>or Downtown\nAbbey<\/em>\u2014it is just not my cup of tea. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In the end, I\nfound myself disliking Pierre just as much as I did when I read the book\u2014which\nis good! It means most others will like him just as much as they do when they\nread the book. The passion and the tears were all there, in the movie and out\nof it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The most\ninauthentic piece of the movie was a lack of 5-minute monologues, in which the\nnarrator would tell us what Tolstoy wanted us to know\u2014instead, Bondarchuk\ndecided to cut almost all of these extended pedagogical moments in exchange for\nsome of the most beautiful cinematographic scenes ever recorded. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This is most definitely the best film adaptation of a book I\u2019ve ever seen, and it\u2019s one of the best movies, on its own merits, that I\u2019ve seen too. First released in 1966, this movie has aged better than most made just 5-10 years ago, and I think, just like the book, it may always stay relevant. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Alex Adams is a senior majoring in History and Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies. An undergraduate fellow at the Havighurst Center, Alex has also worked as our student employee the last two years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [1]<\/a> \u0410\u043d\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0441\u0438\u044f \u0413\u043d\u0435\u0434\u0438\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0430\u044f, \u201c\u0422\u043e\u0432\u0430\u0440\u0438\u0449 \u041a\u0443\u0442\u0443\u0437\u043e\u0432, \u0447\u0442\u043e-\u0442\u043e \u0441\u0442\u0430\u043b\u043e \u0445\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0434\u0430\u0442\u044c!\u201d Mk.ru, <\/em>September 2011, https:\/\/www.mk.ru\/culture\/2011\/09\/20\/625328-tovarisch-kutuzov-chtoto-stalo-holodat.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [2]<\/a> Bilge Ebiri, \u201cThe Fascinating Story Behind Sergei Bondarchuk\u2019s 1968 Epic War and Peace,\u201d Vulture, <\/em>February 2019, https:\/\/www.vulture.com\/2019\/02\/the-wild-story-behind-sergei-bondarchuks-epic-war-and-peace.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [3]<\/a> Charles Stockdale and John Harrington, \u201cFrom \u2018Transformers\u2019 to \u2018Avatar,\u2019 These are the 50 Most Expensive Movies Ever Made,\u201d USA Today<\/em>, July 2018, https:\/\/www.usatoday.com\/story\/life\/movies\/2018\/07\/06\/transformers-avatar-50-most-expensive-movies-ever-made\/762931002\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [4]<\/a> Charles Bramesco, \u201cOne of Film\u2019s Greatest Epics is a 7-hour Adaptation of War and Peace. Really. Vox, <\/em>February 2019, https:\/\/www.vox.com\/culture\/2019\/2\/15\/18223285\/war-and-peace-sergei-bondarchuk-adaptation-1966<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By Alex Adams On the March 25 Wellness Day, a couple friends and I decided to watch War and Peace. The definitive War and Peace adaptation. The 431-minute long, four-part, 1967 Sergei Bondarchuk War and Peace film. Sergei … Continue reading
\n\n\n\n